Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 TheKbob wrote:

Vyxen wrote:


I don't disagree that morals are subjective and that not everyone on this planet feels the same way about intellectual property. However, I would be happy to debate how musicians, artists, photographers and authors are much better off now that there are IP laws, and how horrible it was for them before such laws -- and if you made a living doing creative work of that nature, you'd feel the same way.

[

And I've already discussed and shot down this argument. You have no right to income as of now. As an artist, there is nothing decreeing that somone should and will buy your wares. Rather, the only artists able to sell their wares are those that the market has, for some nearly random fashion deemed desirable.

Intelligent artists are much better suited to follow the lead of their technical based peers and offer their skills as services. There, the quality of their work determines the value of the service and can expect a greater degree of income.

And I chose my degree based on both interest and feasibility to provide for myself; to have a positive, if not great, lifetime return on investment of the both literal and opportunity cost of my education. There's nothing in this world that guarantees the payback of either, but basic application of thought says service based jobs are always going to be in abundance (at least until the singularity takes place) and those basing their profession on simple product output will always be displaced by more efficient ways of reproduction.

Or should we burn all the cotton gins and spinning jennys?

I am a professional photographer. You are right in that nobody has to buy my stuff.

But if someone wants to use one of my photographs, they will pay me based on what they're using it for. If it's going to go on the cover of a high circulation magazine, it will be a different price than someone who wants wedding photos for their family.

If someone uses one of my photos without my consent and without compensating me what I determine to be the price, there's going to be a lawsuit, and if they use it for a commercial purpose, I will get every single cent of profit they made off of it, plus punitive damages. I have successfully done this not just once, but twice, and settled for many times what it would have cost them to just pay me in the first place.

Never, ever, is there the expectation that MY intellectual property is valued at the cost of reproduction (effectively, zero). The ONLY time that my work is valued as a factor of my time is when I've been contracted to work in that fashion (for a show, or product shoot, for example). In that case, the client has all of the intellectual property rights, because they paid me for my time.

 Rippy wrote:
The amount of self entitlement and self justification in this thread is leaving me gob smacked.

That, really is what bothers me.

But anyways, I'm out of this one for a while again... I have no idea why I'm pissing my time away arguing about it. How do I get sucked into such things, lol.

Parting words -- @TheKbob, Vyxen -- I get it -- being able to marry an ongoing service with the product gives you better revenue. You'll make more money off an MMORPG or online or a F2P game than a adventure game that can just be copied and played locally. Or, in the case of 40k, rules that can be digitally copied. That still doesn't make it right (or legal) to pirate a game with no ongoing element.

Vyxen wrote:


I am a professional photographer. You are right in that nobody has to buy my stuff.

But if someone wants to use one of my photographs, they will pay me based on what they're using it for. If it's going to go on the cover of a high circulation magazine, it will be a different price than someone who wants wedding photos for their family.

If someone uses one of my photos without my consent and without compensating me what I determine to be the price, there's going to be a lawsuit, and if they use it for a commercial purpose, I will get every single cent of profit they made off of it, plus punitive damages. I have successfully done this not just once, but twice, and settled for many times what it would have cost them to just pay me in the first place.

Never, ever, is there the expectation that MY intellectual property is valued at the cost of reproduction (effectively, zero). The ONLY time that my work is valued as a factor of my time is when I've been contracted to work in that fashion (for a show, or product shoot, for example). In that case, the client has all of the intellectual property rights, because they paid me for my time.

You've I'll get paid based open the value of your service. And that value will be decreasing with time simply because the opportunity cost is being eaten up because camera technology is much stronger, photo editing software is simpler, and computer graphics technology is stronger.

If you're selling your ability for the right time, right place, congratulations, you meet the criteria. If you're just popping photos and plopping them for sale online, you're going to just open yourself up to knock off and reproduction. The latter is a fools errand.

Art does have value but due to its subjectivity and lowering barrier to succeed, unlike technical skills, you're services will only get cheaper.

Intellectual Property is entirely busted and a product of bygone time. It's artificial scarcity and like any artifical barrier, the market will oppose it. Strongly. And no amount of gnashing teeth or "it's not moral" will stop it. Because eventually it will become unable to be enforced.

Vyxen wrote:

 agnosto wrote:


Again, the conversation is not debating whether or not the creation or sale of the recasts is illegal, it is; I have not disputed this and I dare you find a quote from me stating that. I have stated the fact, supported by the US Attorney's Office, that purchasing such items is not illegal (at least in the US).

The conversation that you have inserted yourself into has been about the supposed "immorality" of purchasing counterfeit or knockoff products. My contention is that mores are subjective on numerous levels dependent greatly on local and culture.

The conversation is the topic at the topic of the thread: "How are recast sites legal?". It's not, "Is recasting moral?" -- which has been the topic of many threads in the past. The topic of THIS thread isn't about the legality of purchasing items for recasting, it's about the legality of websites that sell recast items.

Congratulations, you win the "I have no idea what I'm commenting on but I want so say something really bad" award for this thread. Myself and two other posters were discussing the moral implications of purchasing knockoff products. You may argue that our conversation was off-topic but, meh. I think we've pretty well established that websites and sales of knockoffs are well and truly illegal so all that's really left is to discuss related topics.

Vyxen wrote:
so, I assure you that if you run a US company that *KNOWINGLY* buys counterfeit copy of Windows, for whatever reason, including feeling that Microsoft should sell what essentially costs 0 to produce for a price greater than 0, you will be screwed in a pretty serious way. If you are an individual who downloads an unlicensed movie, you could be hit with a monstrous fine, with a settlement that runs in thousands of dollars. Ask the folks who downloaded Hurt Locker.

Apple, meet orange. The DMCA is a completely different animal and governs such things as software, movies, and music PIRACY. Counterfeit or knockoff products are NOT piracy and not covered by the DMCA or related laws.

Vyxen wrote:
don't disagree that morals are subjective and that not everyone on this planet feels the same way about intellectual property. However, I would be happy to debate how musicians, artists, photographers and authors are much better off now that there are IP laws, and how horrible it was for them before such laws -- and if you made a living doing creative work of that nature, you'd feel the same way.

I have. I have been ripped off in a country where I had zero protections (South Korea) and guess what, I still feel the same way, not entitled to limitlessly benefit from my creative works. I wrote a book, it was published, sold a few thousand copies and my Korean "partner" kept all the money and threatened to turn me over to immigration for working outside of my employment contract if I complained which would have resulted in my expulsion from the country; my employer didn't have any issues with the extra work but the Korean government would have. The good news is that I got my name in the front of the book, that I wrote, as a contributor; very kind of him, yay me.

Life plus 70 years is asinine. Life is crazy. If you write a book, song, etc and can't make enough money off of it to justify doing the work inside 10 years, you either did it because you love doing it or you suck and need to move on to something else.

 agnosto wrote:

Life plus 70 years is asinine. Life is crazy. If you write a book, song, etc and can't make enough money off of it to justify doing the work inside 10 years, you either did it because you love doing it or you suck and need to move on to something else.

Pretty much it. Being first to the market for a new idea is your reward. Once novelty is gone, enforcing it arbitrarily will not put said car back in the bag.

yeah, the whole "life plus 70 years" thing is a bit absurd, but you can thank Disney for that.

 Vaktathi wrote:
yeah, the whole "life plus 70 years" thing is a bit absurd, but you can thank Disney for that.

Again, I hope you make something big and people pirate it. So you can see the folly of your words.
It doesn't even matter if you agree with it or not, it is still the law buddy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sorris wrote:

The countless people who pirate movies/music/games/etc just because they can would disagree with you. I suppose there are a few people who buy recasts to make some kind of ideological statement about how fair GW's prices are, but are they really that common compared to the people who only care about getting the cheapest possible price regardless of how ethical it is?

Buying a physical object and downloading a movie\music\game is a completely different ballgame. Comes down to ease of accessibility. Almost anyone can find a movie online to download or torrent, I can't really download a GW model. (well at least not until 3d printing gets a bit better, then that'll be a different ballgame to)

I can say personally, if the FW models where less expensive for me (as an American esp., where it's like 1 euro to like 1.50 American) I would buy them over the Chinese recasts. It's extremely cost prohibitive for me to buy anything from FW and have it shipped at there prices. I don't even really want to buy the physical copy of the rules book for the models at those prices.

Again, it is a luxury commodity, you won't die without it, therefore your justification for IP infringement is pathetic. "I can't afford it but I want it" isn't an excuse. They set their prices for their goods, you either buy it or don't based on your Ability to. Well, people who don't care about partaking in illegal activities won't just move on. (Yes yes, the buying of it part isn't illegal, you are still apart of the illegal process).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

By any standard it is immoral.

What a strange thing to say.

I remember this discussion happening years ago, and someone who had lived in China pointed out that a large part of the reason that knock-offs are so prevalent there is that culturally, they simply don't see intellectual property as an actual thing. In that sort of environment, despite the fact that their government has signed an international treaty promising to adhere to certain standards, it's very easy to imagine that the average guy on the street would not see a moral issue with ignoring the rules.

We see the same thing in western culture. Intellectual property isn't some fundamental law of the universe. It's a set of imaginary rules that we have created in order to (supposedly) allow the people who create things to fairly profit from them. Unless you talk to opponents of intellectual property law, in which case it's a set of imaginary rules put in place to protect the interests of mega-corporations like Disney, that frequently wind up screwing over the little guy. And to people with that viewpoint, it's very possible that ignoring those laws wouldn't be considered immoral in the slightest.

If anyone from any country wants to trade in to a nation (especially to make a profit themselves), they should understand the laws and culture of the nation they are trading in to. It is not an excuse.

 agnosto wrote:

Congratulations, you win the "I have no idea what I'm commenting on but I want so say something really bad" award for this thread. Myself and two other posters were discussing the moral implications of purchasing knockoff products. You may argue that our conversation was off-topic but, meh. I think we've pretty well established that websites and sales of knockoffs are well and truly illegal so all that's really left is to discuss related topics.

Then start a new thread. Those are free, you know?

 agnosto wrote:

Apple, meet orange. The DMCA is a completely different animal and governs such things as software, movies, and music PIRACY. Counterfeit or knockoff products are NOT piracy and not covered by the DMCA or related laws.

Tell that to Luis Vuitton, and the person who sells Luis Vuitton out of the back of his store. Wait, why doesn't he sell it in the FRONT of his store?

 agnosto wrote:

I have. I have been ripped off in a country where I had zero protections (South Korea) and guess what, I still feel the same way, not entitled to limitlessly benefit from my creative works. I wrote a book, it was published, sold a few thousand copies and my Korean "partner" kept all the money and threatened to turn me over to immigration for working outside of my employment contract if I complained which would have resulted in my expulsion from the country; my employer didn't have any issues with the extra work but the Korean government would have. The good news is that I got my name in the front of the book, that I wrote, as a contributor; very kind of him, yay me.

Life plus 70 years is asinine. Life is crazy. If you write a book, song, etc and can't make enough money off of it to justify doing the work inside 10 years, you either did it because you love doing it or you suck and need to move on to something else.

This is the law of the land of most nations, and the premise under which artists work. Feel free to disagree with it, in which case you should support more Libertarian governments. Although I doubt that even that the craziest of such wouldn't argue for a 10 year copyright.

Sorris wrote:
I can say personally, if the FW models where less expensive for me (as an American esp., where it's like 1 euro to like 1.50 American) I would buy them over the Chinese recasts. It's extremely cost prohibitive for me to buy anything from FW and have it shipped at there prices. I don't even really want to buy the physical copy of the rules book for the models at those prices.

This is so funny coming from an American. Do you guys realize that you get goods almost everything that matters cheaper than everyone else, anywhere else in the world? Don't believe me? Look up prices for things in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, or France.

Do you realize that a ton of Canadians buy things in the US, have it shipped to a pickup point near the border, and drive across to pick it up because we can save anywhere from 25% - 50%?

 Rippy wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
yeah, the whole "life plus 70 years" thing is a bit absurd, but you can thank Disney for that.

Again, I hope you make something big and people pirate it. So you can see the folly of your words.
It doesn't even matter if you agree with it or not, it is still the law buddy.

.

If you set up your entirely livelihood unto chasing the black swan, then you're the one setting yourself up for failure. Arts as a product is not sustainable for large swaths of people. Thanks to the species ability to share and grow knowledge, not restrict it's flow, we benefits from the ideas of millions living now and before us. Perhaps billions if we count all of the slow grind of humanity.

Basing your worth on plunking out a few writings, pictures or creations and hoping they sell on their merits alone versus selling your ability as a service is your own problem. You make yourself vulnerable to an inherent market force in grained in our species.

It sounds cold and harsh, but welcome to reality. Technology changes business. Adapt or don't.

Vyxen wrote:

Then start a new thread. Those are free, you know?

If you feel our discussion on the morality of purchasing recasts was so far off-topic, I recommend that you use the yellow triangle of friendship...or just ignore it and move on.

Vyxen wrote:
Tell that to Luis Vuitton, and the person who sells Luis Vuitton out of the back of his store. Wait, why doesn't he sell it in the FRONT of his store?

Again. Selling such products is illegal, purchasing/owning them is not (at least in the US). Your point about software piracy has nothing to do with knockoffs, they're covered under different laws.

Vyxen wrote:
This is the law of the land of most nations, and the premise under which artists work. Feel free to disagree with it, in which case you should support more Libertarian governments. Although I doubt that even that the craziest of such wouldn't argue for a 10 year copyright.

Fair enough, 10 years was a throwaway number, but the original 25 years made much more sense than any number that extends beyond the life of the artist/creator.

Vyxen wrote:
Recasting a model for your own use is perfectly legal (it falls explicitly under "Fair Use", same as photocopying a book)

Not according to several IP lawyers who have commented on similar discussions over the years.

'Fair Use' (which is an American idea, and doesn't apply to most other countries) allows you to do more or less what you want with the things you buy. It doesn't allow you to reproduce them.

 agnosto wrote:

Vyxen wrote:

Vyxen wrote:
Tell that to Luis Vuitton, and the person who sells Luis Vuitton out of the back of his store. Wait, why doesn't he sell it in the FRONT of his store?

Again. Selling such products is illegal, purchasing/owning them is not (at least in the US). Your point about software piracy has nothing to do with knockoffs, they're covered under different laws.

The laws do vary. For example, in the US and UK, the individual consumer is not breaking any laws. However, if subsequently sell the item, you may not use any trademarks or trade names of the original product, and must clearly identify it as replica/knock-off/counterfeit. In France, it is illegal to buy knockoffs. In all three, it is illegal to sell them and enforcement is fast and furious.

Now, you are a funny guy. On one hand, you want to talk about morality, on the other hand, you talk say software piracy has nothing to do with knockoffs because they're covered by different laws.

So, which is it? If you want to talk about morality, a knockoff of Windows is a great comparison to a knockoff of an Imperial Knight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

Vyxen wrote:
Recasting a model for your own use is perfectly legal (it falls explicitly under "Fair Use", same as photocopying a book)

Not according to several IP lawyers who have commented on similar discussions over the years.

'Fair Use' (which is an American idea, and doesn't apply to most other countries) allows you to do more or less what you want with the things you buy. It doesn't allow you to reproduce them.

I'll admit to not being a fair use expert. But I do know that one is allowed to copy music that one has purchased from one medium to another (for example, my CD to my iPod); and that one is permitted to photocopy a book (from cover to cover if you wish) for personal use, legally. Otherwise, public libraries would be shut down

Edits: ARRRGH! the quotes! I keep messing it up lol.

Vyxen wrote:
I'll admit to not being a fair use expert. But I do know that one is allowed to copy music that one has purchased from one medium to another (for example, my CD to my iPod); and that one is permitted to photocopy a book (from cover to cover if you wish) for personal use, legally. Otherwise, public libraries would be shut down

Music and software have specific exceptions allowing you to make 'backup' copies in the US. The rules vary elsewhere... Up until recently here in Oz, putting a CD onto your iPod was illegal. They got around that by bringing in a 'format shifting' allowance, which lets people copy their own music, books and movies (provided there is no DRM) so long as the copy is a different format to the original.

The rules on photocopying books vary widely from country to country. No idea what the rule is in the US. In the UK, 'limited' copying (ie: part of a book, but not the whole thing) is allowed for educational purposes only. Australia used to allow 10% of the book to be copied, although the format shift rule allows for the whole thing to be copied to a different format (scanned to put onto an eReader, for example).

It's nowhere near as simple as 'copying stuff for your own use is fine'...

 insaniak wrote:

It's nowhere near as simple as 'copying stuff for your own use is fine'...

Fair enough! You sir, are a font of knowledge.

 insaniak wrote:

It's nowhere near as simple as 'copying stuff for your own use is fine'...

... and gets even more complicated when you are distributing those copies, regardless of whether you do so for profit or not. When you base an entire business on doing so, that's even worse.

Vyxen wrote:

The laws do vary. For example, in the US and UK, the individual consumer is not breaking any laws. However, if subsequently sell the item, you may not use any trademarks or trade names of the original product, and must clearly identify it as replica/knock-off/counterfeit. In France, it is illegal to buy knockoffs. In all three, it is illegal to sell them and enforcement is fast and furious.

Now, you are a funny guy. On one hand, you want to talk about morality, on the other hand, you talk say software piracy has nothing to do with knockoffs because they're covered by different laws.

So, which is it? If you want to talk about morality, a knockoff of Windows is a great comparison to a knockoff of an Imperial Knight.

I'll not rehash the whole discussion that I was having earlier in the thread about morality but at least it was in relation to the purchase of recasts not the pirating of software which is a separate issue entirely. Though if you want to ask me how I feel about it; I would say that the societal norms are that piracy is immoral vs purchasing recasts not so much due to the variation in the law. Note that the mores of society can change and result in the changing of laws as a result so at some point purchasing recasts may become illegal in the US and therefor be considered immoral from an overall societal standpoint.

It's an interesting discussion, whether laws reflect the mores of society or vice versa but not entirely relevant to the topic at hand. So yes, one can be seen as immoral and the other not based upon the collective values of society as evidenced through that society's laws.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
yeah, the whole "life plus 70 years" thing is a bit absurd, but you can thank Disney for that.

Again, I hope you make something big and people pirate it. So you can see the folly of your words.
It doesn't even matter if you agree with it or not, it is still the law buddy.

.

If you set up your entirely livelihood unto chasing the black swan, then you're the one setting yourself up for failure. Arts as a product is not sustainable for large swaths of people. Thanks to the species ability to share and grow knowledge, not restrict it's flow, we benefits from the ideas of millions living now and before us. Perhaps billions if we count all of the slow grind of humanity.

Basing your worth on plunking out a few writings, pictures or creations and hoping they sell on their merits alone versus selling your ability as a service is your own problem. You make yourself vulnerable to an inherent market force in grained in our species.

It sounds cold and harsh, but welcome to reality. Technology changes business. Adapt or don't.

Huh? I didn't say go out and spend your whole life trying to invent one thing and letting it get stale. I am saying that if you own something, and someone else literally steals it to make money themselves, your opinion on the matter would change. Just because you think we as a culture should be able to share ideas, doesn't mean others can steal people's IP for a profit.

 agnosto wrote:

Vyxen wrote:

The laws do vary. For example, in the US and UK, the individual consumer is not breaking any laws. However, if subsequently sell the item, you may not use any trademarks or trade names of the original product, and must clearly identify it as replica/knock-off/counterfeit. In France, it is illegal to buy knockoffs. In all three, it is illegal to sell them and enforcement is fast and furious.

Now, you are a funny guy. On one hand, you want to talk about morality, on the other hand, you talk say software piracy has nothing to do with knockoffs because they're covered by different laws.

So, which is it? If you want to talk about morality, a knockoff of Windows is a great comparison to a knockoff of an Imperial Knight.

I'll not rehash the whole discussion that I was having earlier in the thread about morality but at least it was in relation to the purchase of recasts not the pirating of software which is a separate issue entirely. Though if you want to ask me how I feel about it; I would say that the societal norms are that piracy is immoral vs purchasing recasts not so much due to the variation in the law. Note that the mores of society can change and result in the changing of laws as a result so at some point purchasing recasts may become illegal in the US and therefor be considered immoral from an overall societal standpoint.

It's an interesting discussion, whether laws reflect the mores of society or vice versa but not entirely relevant to the topic at hand. So yes, one can be seen as immoral and the other not based upon the collective values of society as evidenced through that society's laws.

I'm not talking about downloading a piece of software off the Internet. I'm talking about buying a packaged product that is counterfeit, like Windows. With a fake CD, fake box, fake papers, and all that. I don't see how that's any different than buying a fake handbag, or a fake Warhammer model.

Would you agree that a knockoff Luis Vuitton handbag is no different than a knockoff Storm Raven?

 Rippy wrote:

Huh? I didn't say go out and spend your whole life trying to invent one thing and letting it get stale. I am saying that if you own something, and someone else literally steals it to make money themselves, your opinion on the matter would change. Just because you think we as a culture should be able to share ideas, doesn't mean others can steal people's IP for a profit.

Novel concept: you cannot own an idea. Whether the law says so or otherwise, once it's in the wild, you cannot control it.

And you don't get what I'm saying. Making a profession out if selling artisic items of any trade is a losing bet. Selling your service as an artist is the best means to success.

So if you steal my physical widget, good on you, that's theft. If you take my idea, I can't make you "give it back". I'll either have to stamp feet and complain or be smarter and come up with a new one.

"IP for profit ", to me, is a dumb concept. I'd cede ground to allow notion of IP, as compromise is key, but that doesn't mean it defies logic or market forces. Coming up with a novel way of fabricating something, a medicine, or scientific process should have ability to be protected under a limited time frame to cover the concept to market period, as they are significantly costly ventures that are important for society.

The idea of I own the idea of dudes in space with big armor is stupid. And serves nothing to push forward any medium. Patents have a measurable purpose. Copyright has no real measurable worth outside of those defending an unsustainable business practice.

So steal my ideas. I'll just have to come up with better ones. (or continue working in a technical service position).

I am not arguing the ownership of ideas mate. I am saying "don't recast, as the recast for profit is theft". Reread what I wrote.
Again it doesn't matter what you think if IP theft is a good concept or not, it is simply IP theft.

 Rippy wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
yeah, the whole "life plus 70 years" thing is a bit absurd, but you can thank Disney for that.

Again, I hope you make something big and people pirate it. So you can see the folly of your words.
It doesn't even matter if you agree with it or not, it is still the law buddy.

I can absolutely certain that I will not care about any level of piracy of any work I create that occurs up to 70 years after my death. I feel pretty confident in guaranteeing that I will have no strong feelings one way or the other.

And, likewise, I'm not arguing whether it's the law or not. I'm really not sure what you're trying to dig at here.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
yeah, the whole "life plus 70 years" thing is a bit absurd, but you can thank Disney for that.

Again, I hope you make something big and people pirate it. So you can see the folly of your words.
It doesn't even matter if you agree with it or not, it is still the law buddy.

I can absolutely certain that I will not care about any level of piracy of any work I create that occurs up to 70 years after my death. I feel pretty confident in guaranteeing that I will have no strong feelings one way or the other.

And, likewise, I'm not arguing whether it's the law or not. I'm really not sure what you're trying to dig at here.

You obviously don't care about your grandchildren or your legacy either. That was my dig. It is your right to hand it down as inheritance.

 Rippy wrote:
I am not arguing the ownership of ideas mate. I am saying "don't recast, as the recast for profit is theft". Reread what I wrote.
Again it doesn't matter what you think if IP theft is a good concept or not, it is simply IP theft.

Still wrong. It's copyright infringement. Not theft. You cannot steal concepts, ideas, etc. By saying theft, you're buying into the corporate lobbyists and their jargon. And it's a civil matter at that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rippy wrote:

You obviously don't care about your grandchildren or your legacy either. That was my dig. It is your right to hand it down as inheritance.

Giving your heirs money us actually one of the worst ways to ensure their success. The best way is to foster learning and invest in their education, which doesn't need to be done based on your 1980s single smash hit (that you yourself cannot recreate the success because popularity is a black swan, subject to random chance).

So wrong again.

 Rippy wrote:

You obviously don't care about your grandchildren or your legacy either. That was my dig. It is your right to hand it down as inheritance.

In all honesty, I'll be damned if I let my grandchildren get a living out of things I've done or achieved.

Things like books should have a fixed copyright time (i.e. 30 years or so) and go straight to public domain after that. Mr. Lazyass Heir can go earn his own living instead of parasiting from what someone related to them did a lifetime ago.

So, J.R.R. Tolkein's heirs should not receive compensation for the smashing success of the Lord of the Rings films?

Anyone should be able to write a game about Gandalf and Frodo? Someone should be able to make a Book 4 of the Lord of the Rings?

I think not.

The Lord of the Rings franchise is rightly not in the public domain, though one day, it will be.

 Rippy wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
yeah, the whole "life plus 70 years" thing is a bit absurd, but you can thank Disney for that.

Again, I hope you make something big and people pirate it. So you can see the folly of your words.
It doesn't even matter if you agree with it or not, it is still the law buddy.

I can absolutely certain that I will not care about any level of piracy of any work I create that occurs up to 70 years after my death. I feel pretty confident in guaranteeing that I will have no strong feelings one way or the other.

And, likewise, I'm not arguing whether it's the law or not. I'm really not sure what you're trying to dig at here.

You obviously don't care about your grandchildren or your legacy either. That was my dig. It is your right to hand it down as inheritance.

My grandchildren can make their own damn IP to profit off of in that case. The idea that they deserve continual revenues from the exclusive rights to something created for public consumption up to a lifetime after my death is, quite frankly, absurd. Patent protection certainly doesn't last that long. The idea that I don't care about grandchildren because I think the IP laws last far too long is likewise absurd, and more than a little insulting.

Any sort of "legacy" will be the work itself.

Vyxen wrote:

I'm not talking about downloading a piece of software off the Internet. I'm talking about buying a packaged product that is counterfeit, like Windows. With a fake CD, fake box, fake papers, and all that. I don't see how that's any different than buying a fake handbag, or a fake Warhammer model.

Would you agree that a knockoff Luis Vuitton handbag is no different than a knockoff Storm Raven?

Digital products like software are covered under the DMCA, even if they are a packaged product and are a different animal, legally speaking, to fake handbags. You may not see a difference yet the law does.

I agree that there is no difference between a knockoff handbag and a knockoff storm raven and current law in the US agrees.

 Korinov wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

You obviously don't care about your grandchildren or your legacy either. That was my dig. It is your right to hand it down as inheritance.

In all honesty, I'll be damned if I let my grandchildren get a living out of things I've done or achieved.

Things like books should have a fixed copyright time (i.e. 30 years or so) and go straight to public domain after that. Mr. Lazyass Heir can go earn his own living instead of parasiting from what someone related to them did a lifetime ago.

Some people who stand to inherit fortunes may disagree with you. Some people with fortunes to pass to their children and grandchildren may also disagree with your characterization of their successors being just Mr. Layzyass Heir being a parasite.

Like me, for example! I'm a photographer and I love it as a profession and passion. I'm pretty good, too. But I could have never done it without the support of my family, because it's not a profession that pays very well as you start out, and it's not really easy to start a family being a photographer. But because I come from a well-to-do family, I could do something that I love, instead of grinding out a job that I don't. I have two kids, and I want to give them the best start to life, hope they achieve more than me (but will love them more than anything no matter what), and I will be happy to pass on all that I possess to them.

Glad you're bitter that some people have it better than you, though.

There's a difference between not leaving them a huge fortune to live off of (which is what I believe Korinov was talking about), and not helping them get started in life.

My grandparents helped me pay for school. They're did not leave me a gigantic pile of inheritance money to live off of however (though they certainly could have).

 Vaktathi wrote:
There's a difference between not leaving them a huge fortune to live off of (which is what I believe Korinov was talking about), and not helping them get started in life.

My grandparents helped me pay for school. They're did not leave me a gigantic pile of inheritance money to live off of however (though they certainly could have).

No, but one day, you'll be 70, and your parents will pass away. Maybe you've done pretty well in life, but if they leave you a few hundred thousand dollars, it will make your retirement a lot easier. If I'm in that situation, I'd rather leave the money I hadn't used to my kids (who hopefully will be seniors!), rather than to give it away to someone else.

Along the way, I'll be happy to help them whenever I can. I'm not rich, but I'd love to buy my son his first car. I'd love to help my daughter put a down payment on her home. To me, that's a joy of parenthood, not a way to make them lazy. Like everything, there's a happy in-between -- somewhere between the parents that boot you out at 18 and the Paris Hilton's parents.